I did not ask you for proof of the supernatural. Are you dense? You asserted there was no such thing as the supernatural. And, I warned you not to engage in a 'Black Swan" fallacy. What did you do? "Black Swan fallacy. Can you evidence your claim for the non-existence of the supernatural or not?
The only person making assertions is you. Demonstrate your claim or admit you were in error.
Then why would you make the inane assertion …
You are a liar. You made an assertion about what ‘is not,’ and now I ask you for evidence, so you contradict yourself and say that you do not talk about what isn’t, only what is. Are you even aware of what you are saying or are you just confused?
I’m pretty sure many aspects of our daily lives involving modern apparatuses and technologies would seem supernatural a couple of millennia (or even just a century) ago. Or even today, for those who have not seen it before. Let me illustrate this with an anecdote. A few years ago, I was on vacation abroad, on another continent. On one occasion, I needed to get from place A to place B, which involved driving for a few hours. For tourists, the normal way to do it there was to hire a driver with a car, so that’s what I did. Along the way, I needed to stop at place C to pick up some stuff. The driver was not quite sure how to get there, so I entered the address into the GPS app on my phone, to let it guide us. Well, the GPS did what it was supposed to do, namely guide us with the normal “In 200 meters, turn right” type of instructions. The driver was totally baffled, and after a while he asked “What kind of theology is that?” (Yes, he actually said “theology”, but he meant “technology”. However, this litte mixup made his comment even more interesting). The driver was quite familiar with modern smartphones, but the concept of navigation equipment à la GPS was totally new to him. I guess you had to be there to really appreciate how this piece of software that we take for granted seemed almost like magic to him. In any case, this illustrated quite nicely Clarke’s third law, which states that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Since all claims carry a burden of proof, I am wondering how you would achieve that for that assertion, as it seems unfalsifiable to me? I can’t believe any unfalsifiable assertions, and there appears no contradiction in withholding belief from two contradictory claims if they are both unfalsifiable. I also would be cautious not to make a contrary claim, as you have done there.
I have made no assertion either way, the assertion was yours, that “no soul exists”, and just as those who assert it does, I am curious how what appears to be an unfalsifiable assertion can be objectively evidenced at all?
Your explanation is clearly simpler without your assertion “that no soul exists” as we can simply see that the idea of a soul is not evidenced in any objective way, and also appears to be an unfalsifiable concept, why go farther than disbelief of such a claim, and make an assertion yourself that is also unfalsifiable and cannot be objectively evidenced? The claims may not carry an equal burden of proof, but they are similar claims at least n the sense that they are unfalsifiable and cannot be objectively evidenced.
He is trying I believe to explain the epistemological difference between disbelieving an unfalsifiable claim, and making a contrary claim that itself cannot be objectively evidenced as it must of course also be unfalsifiable.
I have no reason to believe in the supernatural as I have seen no objective evidence, I cannot say or measure the probability of future evidence for an unfalsifiable claim. I can only withhold belief, and keep an open mind.
He is not, he is asking you to properly evidence your assertion no soul exists, so far you seem unable to do so, and theists or religious apologists will likely leap on your assertion as well, as evidence that your reasoning is inconsistent and biased.
That’s a meaningless tautology, and is sailing very close here to an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, we may not know that something exists as we have no objective evidence it does, and so are justified in withholding belief, however to claim a lack of evidence proves non-existence is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Is this a tag team? I stated my position. If you wish to continue trying to pull apart the simple explanation then please, be my guest. But I stand by what I said. There NOTHING outside the laws of nature, therefore, the supernatural does not exist. Faulting me with endless fallacies doesn’t change that.
Actually, @Dtss, the debate forum is a place for folks to challenge what another is writing (stating, saying, asserting, etc). Occasionally, it might ‘sound’ derisive or vitriolic. You’ve been visiting here for a few years and have read those challenges over and over, in all their forms and flavors. You seem surprised just now that it’s happening…or is it surprise that it’s happening to you? Have you ever come to the support of a theist here who is being challenged for an assertion in the same tone? I don’t remember seeing that from you. Was it okay then? But not now?
Many folks who identify as atheist also identify as skeptic. Skepticism is not limited for use only when theists make assertions. Everyone who posts here is subject to challenge, theist and atheist. If you find being challenged uncomfortable, and you want to avoid that discomfort, consider not making unevidenced, unsupportable assertions.
You claimed there was no such thing as a soul, I asked you if you could demonstrate some objective evidence to support this claim? However since you are now making a raft of new claims then these also would carry a burden of proof.
Using a logical fallacy makes the assertion or argument irrational by definition, I made no other claims about it, I merely want to understand what objective evidence (if any) you have to support your claim(s)? If you don’t have any you can just say so. As I explained the claim seems unfalsifiable to me, which would make evidencing it impossible.
Exactly so, as such bias would define a closed mind.
I wonder @Dtss do you see what is being implied here by @Get_off_my_lawn? If we define the supernatural as everything outside of the laws of nature, then we have to admit that since our knowledge of nature is incomplete, it follows that we cannot know if there exists anything outside of it or supernatural. We can of course disbelieve people who claim the supernatural exists, as I do of course, as this is equally unsupported by any objective evidence, but I must also remain agnostic about unfalsifiable claims, as well as withholding belief.
While not really a definition, I can give you a red flag that indicates you are dealing with a supernatural claim: any claim that appeals to the non-physical. For example: substance dualism.
Although it serves as a red flag indicator regarding supernatural claims, it does not really address what “supernatural” is.
Yes, this is more or less my point. An event that cannot (yet) be explained by our current knowledge is not automatically supernatural, as it can be perfectly natural, but described by physical processes or physical laws that we just haven’t uncovered yet, or that the observer has not (yet) learned about. Thus, whether it is supernatural or natural but not explainable yet is undecidable.
Consider the following scenario: Imagine you are able to travel in time. You go back to medieval times somewhere in Europe, and you bring along an advanced setup for a laser show that can draw pictures in the air or on walls, as well as powerful loudspeakers (along with a suitably sized battery and/or a generator, of course). You sneakily set up the laser show and set it off during a religious festival, with lots of light and sound. Although the laser show and the booming sounds from the loudspeakers are perfectly explainable using our knowledge of physics, this would be a certain sign of otherworldly/supernatural godly intervention for the medieval people. They just wouldn’t have the references to understand or explain what happened. But that does not make it actually supernatural. Incomprehensible for the onlookers, yes, but not unexplainable. Yet.
Demonstrate something outside or unrelated to the laws of nature. Do you know what is even meant by laws of nature? Do you know what a ‘Law’ is? Or… are you just hearing shit and repeating it?
Lastly, what do you imagine the ‘Laws of Nature’ say about the supernatural?
AGAIN: Please share what you imagine the laws of nature have to say about the supernatural. Please show me any ‘Law of Nature’ that clearly states, "The supernatural does not exist.’ There is no such law.
This is a debate forum and you have clearly been shown the fallacy of your argument. You have no evidence for your claim. Rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks against people who are attempting to show you how erroneous your assumptions are, why don’t you put your ego down and listen for a moment? You have no evidence at all for your claim of the ‘Supernatural Not Existing.’ You do not understand logical argumentation or fallacious reasoning. You are missing an opportunity to actually understand something about logical argumentation and you are so butt-hurt that you are going to pass by the opportunity and completely miss a valuable lesson. It’s not a tag team, Sheldon, Cyber, and Old Man understand the Laws of logic and how to construct logical arguments. They understand the burden of proof and the distinction between fallacious claims and well-reasoned claims. Set down your ignorance and listen to what people are telling you. You are demonstrably wrong in making the claim, ‘The supernatural does not exist.’ Your position on this matter is untenable.
LOL — Like I can’t handle an ad hominem attack and laugh about it. 'Oh how shall I ‘Fuck off o-Lord?’
Please be careful, you may get yourself banned before you learn the valuable lesson people on the site are attempting to teach you.
EDIT: I just realized that you don’t have a clue as to what Occam’s Razor means. You can not say "Occom’s Razor in one breath, and there is ‘no such thing as a soul’ in the next. What happened to Occam’s Razor, did you leave it at home when you made that remark? LOL…